Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE Sr.JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE M. M.SEETHARAMA MURTI I.T.T.A.No.148 of 2004 24-12-2014 Malreddy Ranga Reddy, hyderabad.Appellant Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Hyderabad.Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sr.Y. RATNAKAR Counsel for Respondent: Ms.M.KIRANMAYEE, representing Sr.J.V.PRASAD, learned Senior Standing Counsel ?. Cases referred: HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI I.T.T.A.No.148 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (per the Honble Sr.Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) is preferred against the order dated 28.04.2004 passed by the Hyderabad Bench A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal) in IT(SS).No.123/HYD/2003. The assessee is the appellant. The premises of the appellant was searched on 19.01.2001 by the officials of the Income Tax Department in exercise of power under Section 132 of the Act. A re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE Sr.JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE M. M.SEETHARAMA MURTI I.T.T.A.No.148 of 2004 24-12-2014 Malreddy Ranga Reddy, hyderabad.Appellant Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Hyderabad.Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sr.Y. RATNAKAR Counsel for Respondent: Ms.M.KIRANMAYEE, representing Sr.J.V.PRASAD, learned Senior Standing Counsel ?. Cases referred: HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI I.T.T.A.No.148 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (per the Honble Sr.Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) is preferred against the order dated 28.04.2004 passed by the Hyderabad Bench A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal) in IT(SS).No.123/HYD/2003. The assessee is the appellant. The premises of the appellant was searched on 19.01.2001 by the officials of the Income Tax Department in exercise of power under Section 132 of the Act. A re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963AP334; 1963CriLJ249
ORDERSanjeeva Row Nayudu, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order of the Court of Session, Kistna Division, Masulipatam dated 20th July, I960 in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1960 on the file of the said Court, confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the Addl. District Munsif-Magiatrate, VJjayawada in Calendar Case Mo. 326 of J959 on the file of the said Court.2. The petitioner herein was charged before theSecond Addl. Munsif-Magistrate, Vijayawada under Section 9(a)of the Opium Act (1 of 1878) and convicted of that chargeand sentenced to four months' simple imprisonment and (sic)fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to simple imprisonment for (sic)further period of one month.3. Against this, he preferred an appeal to the Court of Session, Kistna at Masulipatam. The learned Sesions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision.4. It may be necessary at the outset to briefly notice; the facts, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965AP176; 1965CriLJ543
(1) The respondent herein one U. Nageswararao was charge-sheeted under Sec. 3 (1) of Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) by the Special Police Officer and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bandar, before the Munsif Magistrate, Gudivada in Calendar Case No. 21 of 1963. The allegations against the respondent were that he was running a brothel in house bearing Door No. 12/327; that when on 19-11-1962 at about 11-45 in the night the Special Police Officer along with the mediators made a surprise raid on the said house, he found two customers in the house in the company of prostitutes. It was stated that the respondent was also present in the house. He opened the door and the party on entering the house found two rooms in the eastern side of the house bolted from inside. When the doors were opened, P. Ws. 1 and 2 were found inside while in the other room P. Ws. 6 and 7 were found in the dishevelled state. On enquiry it was revealed by P. W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)341; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)384; 2002CriLJ2356
ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. This Criminal Revision arises out of an order in Cri A No. 173/96, dated 4-6-1999 on the file of the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, confirming the conviction and sentence inflicted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Banaganpalle, in C.C. No. 192/95 dated 10-10-1996 wherein A1 was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act and is sentenced is to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the said offence.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contenced that under Section 37(b) of the Arms Act (for brevity the Act) the accused was arrested on 15-3-1994. According to the prosecution one country made SBL gun was seized from the possession of accused on 14-3-1994 but he was not produced. As per the Judgment of the Sessions Court he was arrested on 14-3-1994 and the weapon was seized. On 14-3-1994, the gun was not produced along with the accused but the SBL gun was received in the Court on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(4)ALD481; 2000(4)ALT262
ORDER1. These two writ petitions listed are before me along with three interlocutory applications seeking to implead the applicants as party-respondents in the writ petitions, and further to vacate the interim orders granted on 9-5-2000 in the above writ petitions. In fact berth the writ petitions were admitted and interim directions were granted by the learned single Judge of this Court on the said date.2. The facts leading to the present litigation are as follows:The writ petitioners in both the writ petitions are working as Managers (Engineering) in the respondent-HyderabadMetropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, (for short 'the Board') which was constituted under the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989, (for short 'the Act'), which came into force in the month of July, 1989.3. The petitioners in the first Writ Petition No. 8411 of 2000 were directly recruited by the said Board and the petitioners in the second Writ Petition No.8412 of 2000 were the emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2002]46CLA23(AP); [2002]108CompCas58(AP); (2002)1CompLJ251(AP)
J. Chelameswar, J.1. These four appeals are preferred against the common order passed by the Company Law Board, Southern Bench, Chennai, in C. P. Nos. 15, 21, 22, 23/111-A/SRB of 1998. The appellants in Appeals Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2001 herein were the petitioners in C. P. Nos. 23,15, 21 and 22 of 1998 respectively before the Company Law Board. M/s. Nile Ltd. is the common respondent in all the appeals herein and before the Company Law Board.2. All the four company petitions were disposed of by the Company Law Board by its common order dated November 1, 2000. The appellant in Appeal No. 3 of 2001, viz., M/s. Gujarat Machinery Manufacturing Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'GMM') is admittedly the holding company of all the three other companies which are appellants in the other three appeals, i.e., Company Appeals Nos. 2, 4 and 5 of 2001.3. The various dates and facts to be mentioned hereafter are culled out from the list of dates furnished by the appellants at the time of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969AP99; 1969CriLJ368
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the 4th City Magistrate, Hyderabad given on 16th March, 1965, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. 2. The essential facts are that the accused are the partners of the shop named and styled as 'Fida Hussain All Hussain' Medical and General Stores, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. The accused held Licence No. 117/62 in Form 20-A and 148/62 in Form 20-B issued on 1-1-1962 by the Drugs Controller, Andhra Pradesh. The accused deal in medicines manufactured by various firms. 3. On 3-7-1963, on getting information that the accused have been selling misbranded and spurious drugs like Tincture Iodine, Eucalyptus Oil, Glucose Powder and Woodwards Celebrated Gripe Water etc., the Drugs Inspector (P. W. 1) accompanied by P. W. 2 Drugs Inspector Nanded, and a Police Officer and Panchayatdars went to the shop of the accused at about 3 p. m. They sent one Suryakanth (P. W. 3) to purchase specimens of drugs. Accused 1 was at the counter and was at the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)ALD(Cri)488; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)279; 2002CriLJ1329
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment inflicted upon the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry in NDPS SC No. 7 of 1995 on 28-9-1995.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is as under :A-1, A-2 and A-3 are close associates involved in Ganja business. On 1-9-1994 at about 4-00 p.m. the SI of Police (P.W. 4) along with his staff and mediators, P.W. 1 and another, while proceeding on bye-pass road atTuni noticed the accused, who are in possession of two suit-cases and a hand bag, standing near Sri Lakshmi Hotel of R. Bangara Babu (P.W. 3). On seeing the police party, the accused tried to escape from that place along with their belongings. P.W. 4 with the help of his staff arrested them on suspicion and brought them to the Hotel and found one cement c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD558; 1999(1)ALT628; [2000]100CompCas211(AP)
ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, CJ .1. Statutory protection against 'oppression' in corporate management as provided under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act cannot but be ascribed to be discretionary in nature and the law Courts would be within its right to pass appropriate orders having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter under consideration and there is due statutory sanction in regard thereto. While it is true that there is no definition of 'oppression' as such in the Companies Act, but the fact remains that the events shall have to be shown in such a manner so as to depict a continuous state of affairs which would render the Court to come to the conclusion that the affairs of the company and the management thereof are being conducted in a manner oppressive to some members of the Company. Be it noted that isolated act of indiscipline or indifference or even deprivation by itself would not bring home the charge of oppression - there shall have to be a continu...
Tag this Judgment!